Warner Todd Huston reported at Breitbart Monday that “in some of its reports on Saturday night’s White House Correspondents Dinner (WHCD), the Associated Press failed to include one of President Obama’s own gags.”

Obama said: “These days I look in the mirror and have to admit, I’m not the strapping young Muslim Socialist that I used to be.” But, noted Huston, “in one version of the night’s story (as seen at Huffington Post, Time Magazine, Breitbart Wires, the Ottawa Citizen, and The Columbian to name a few), the AP’s Bradley Klapper forgot one part of the President’s joke,” reporting his words as “I’m not the strapping young Socialist that I used to be,”

Why? Did they think it had too much of a ring of truth?

Why did some editors at AP or at the publications that picked up the AP story think it necessary to run interference for Obama on this point?

By mocking the idea that he is a Muslim (and a Socialist), Obama is trying to render these things too ridiculous for serious public discussion. Fine. His personal beliefs are of no moment, except insofar as they influence his public stances. And the direction of his public policies is obvious. He has maintained a consistent foreign policy line that has enabled the establishment of several Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia states in North Africa and the Middle East, and a domestic policy that has enabled the advance of the Islamic supremacist agenda to assert the primacy of Islamic law over American law and practice wherever they conflict. No amount of mockery will obscure that.

The record is clear. As demonstrations and revolts swept the Muslim world during Obama’s first term, he was enthusiastic. He had encouraging words for the “Arab Spring” demonstrators in Egypt and Tunisia, and even gave military assistance to their Libyan counterparts. During the third and last debate of the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney and Obama sparred over which could express support for the Syrian rebels (who are dominated by Islamic jihadists) more strongly, and as Obama’s second term began, his administration was inching ever closer to military aid for those rebels. Yet there were two large-scale demonstrations in Muslim countries that Obama did not support – and those two exceptions are extraordinarily revealing about his disposition, as well as his policy, toward Islam.

The two pro-democracy revolts that Obama refused to support were arguably the only two that were genuinely worthy of the pro-democracy label: the demonstrations against the Islamic regime in Iran in 2009, and the anti-Muslim Brotherhood demonstrations in Egypt in winter 2013. There is a common thread between these two that distinguishes them from all the others: in Egypt in late 2012 and early 2013, as well as in Iran in 2009, the demonstrators were protesting against Islamic states; all the other demonstrations led to the establishment of Islamic states. To be sure, the Iranian demonstrators in 2009 contained many pro-Sharia elements that simply objected to the way the Islamic Republic was enforcing Sharia, but they also included many who wanted to reestablish the relatively secular society that prevailed under the last Shah. Whether the Sharia or the democratic forces would have won out in the end is a question that will never be answered – in no small part thanks to Barack Obama.

In every case Barack Obama has been consistent: in response to the demonstrations and uprisings in the Islamic world, he has without exception acted in the service of Islamic supremacist, pro-Sharia regimes. For whatever complex of personal affinity and political calculation, he has steered the United States, in the words of the Egyptian newspaper Rose el-Youssef, “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The transformation of U.S. foreign and domestic policy is the most significant manifestation of Obama’s warmly positive stance toward Islam. Speaking at the Pentagon in 2010 on the ninth anniversary of 9/11, Barack Obama returned to a recurring theme of his presidency: that the attacks on Americans and the war that has been declared against the West have nothing do with Islam. “As Americans, we will not and never will be at war with Islam,” Obama declared, echoing almost verbatim words he used in his June 2009 Cairo address, and then adding: “It was not a religion that attacked us that September day. It was al-Qaeda, a sorry band of men, which perverts religion.”

George W. Bush had affirmed that the U.S. was not at war with Islam, but Obama drove home the point in numerous ways: purging military and intelligence training materials of any mention of Islam in connection with terrorism; employing the might of the Justice Department to win special accommodation for Muslims in workplaces and schools; and lending the prestige and power of his administration to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s efforts to compel Western states to criminalize criticism of Islam.

Not a bad record for a self-described “Muslim Socialist,” however facetiously he meant the appellation. No wonder AP was embarrassed for him.

Logged

"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual.

There are twol facets to this matter, which, given whose ox is begin gored, is likely to attract media attention:

1) First Amendment issues2) National Security/Intel Issues

As I see things, there is an inherent tension here between the government having matters which are properly and necessarily to be kept secret and the fact that government uses that as a justification to declare "Secret!!!" on matters that are simply inconvenient.

I for one railed at the irresponsible and even unpatriotic disclosures during the Iraq War (e.g. that we were funding Iraqi journalists) and the Afpakia War (e.g. that we were tracking financial flows of AQ, that we were reading the geology of the rocks behind OBL when he released his videos as a way of trying to determine where he was). OTOH I am all for the whistle-blowers helping the American people find out what really happened at Benghazi.

Here, initial reports read like AG Holder and his minions went well overboard.

Shortly after I did my April 2012 interview with President Obama, my wife, friends and some viewers suggested that I might need to watch out for the IRS. I don't accept "conspiracy theories", but I do know that almost immediately after the interview, the IRS started hammering me. At the time, I dismissed the "co-incidence", but now, I have concerns ... after revelations about the IRS targeting various groups and their members. Originally, the IRS apologized for red-flagging conservative groups and their members if they had "Tea Party" or "patriot" in their name. Today, there are allegations that the IRS focused on various groups and/or individuals questioning or criticizing government spending, taxes, debt or how the government is run ... any involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, or social economic reform/movement. In that April 2012 interview, I questioned President Obama on several topics: the Buffet Rule, his public remarks about the Supreme Court before the ruling on the Affordable Care Act. I also asked why he wasn't doing more to help Sen. Claire McCaskill who at that time was expected to lose. The Obama interview caught fire and got wide-spread attention because I questioned his spending. I said some viewers expressed concern, saying they think he's "out of touch" because of his personal and family trips in the midst of our economic crisis. The President's face clearly showed his anger; afterwards, his staff which had been so polite ... suddenly went cold. That's to be expected, and I can deal with that just as I did with President George H. Bush's staff when he didn't like my questions. Journalistic integrity is of the utmost importance to me. My job is to ask the hard questions, because I believe viewers have a right to be well-informed. I cannot and will not promote anyone's agenda - political or otherwise - at the expense of the reporting the truth. What I don't like to even consider ... is that because of the Obama interview … the IRS put a target on me. Can I prove it? At this time, no. But it is a fact that since that April 2012 interview ... the IRS has been pressuring me.

Although I certainly am glad for the Republic that the systemic lies to the American people about who it was that was attacking us at Benghazi are finally receiving the attention they should have received before the election, I confess to a cerain , , , je ne se quoi that there is a certain pompous self-importance to the press here. They only care when "they" get lied to (or listened to by DOJ) not when we the people get lied to or listened to.

As I have noted here before, I find it far more important that our Commander in Chief, our Secretary of State, our Secretary of Defense, African Command General Hamm (I maybe misstating his title a bit here) all refused to go to the aid of Americans under fire and that they seem to think their failure to try is excusable because they claim they wouldn't have gotten there in time anyway. The depth of the apparent moral and patriotic depravity here is extraordinary-- yet the pravdas seem only to care that "You lied to US. Don't you know how important WE are?"

From the article:But what makes this revelation particularly disturbing is that the DOJ, in order to get this search warrant, insisted that not only Kim, but also Rosen - the journalist - committed serious crimes. The DOJ specifically argued that by encouraging his source to disclose classified information - something investigative journalists do every day - Rosen himself broke the law.

I met Andrew and hung out briefly with him at CPAC a couple of years ago, and he was a very friendly, extremely smart and generous individual with his time. He is sorely missed.

The way he was treated by the liberal press both during his life, but even worse - after he died unexpectedly of a heart attack - was ABOMINABLE.

He was a true pioneer and fearless bulldog with citizen reporting and exposing lies the mainstream media would routinely ignore or try to cover-up. Those who hated him, hated him precisely because he told the truth about their nefarious activities. Please see this film - and take 5 seconds to request the movie by shown in your area by clicking on the link below:

I met Andrew and hung out briefly with him at CPAC a couple of years ago, and he was a very friendly, extremely smart and generous individual with his time. He is sorely missed.The way he was treated by the liberal press both during his life, but even worse - after he died unexpectedly of a heart attack - was ABOMINABLE. He was a true pioneer and fearless bulldog with citizen reporting and exposing lies the mainstream media would routinely ignore or try to cover-up. Those who hated him, hated him precisely because he told the truth about their nefarious activities. Please see this film - and take 5 seconds to request the movie by shown in your area by clicking on the link below:www.hatingbreitbart.com/demandit

Yes. He is a legend in new media. Rising from pizza delivery boy to editor of Drudge, launching the Huffington Post and on his own web site, he personified the first amendment. He died at least a half century too soon. You are fortunate to have met him. Like Drudge, he was out front getting stories out that otherwise would get buried. He was committed to making a difference in the 2012 campaign when he died. Nothing short of untimely death could ever have stopped him.

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which wetrust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason andtruth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues totruth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is,therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which wetrust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason andtruth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues totruth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is,therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions."

Journalists trawling for leaks should be willing to share the risksBy Sarah Chayes,May 31, 2013Sarah Chayes is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. She was an NPR reporter from 1997-2001 and special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2010-2011.

“Are you kidding me?”

I was always stunned to hear reporters ask me — as they did half a dozen times when I worked at the Pentagon — to show them some classified document or other. They’d just pop the question blithely, unfazed, without an apparent thought for the implications. My incredulous retort would usually reap an only half-sheepish answer: “Well, I had to ask.”

Countless national security officials have had some version of this conversation – including the State Department security adviser that Fox News correspondent James Rosen allegedly plumbed for information on North Korea. Rosen wrote in an e-mail that he’d “love to see some internal State Department analyses.”

I’ve served on both sides of the line, as an NPR reporter and a Defense Department official, and it’s from that split perspective that I’ve been observing the furor over the seizure of journalists’ telephone and e-mail records in Justice Department investigations of national security leaks. Especially troubling to some reporters and pundits is a search warrant application suggesting that Rosen was “an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator” with his source. Commentators have decried the Justice Department for criminalizing journalism itself.

The value to democracy of a courageous and unfettered press poking into back corners that agencies would rather keep hidden is incontrovertible. But I find myself wondering why journalists shouldn’t shoulder some responsibility for transgressions they often goad their sources to commit.

Every government employee who obtains a security clearance receives a briefing on the rules about accessing and using classified information, and, as part of his or her terms of employment, must sign a piece of paper acknowledging the potential consequences of violating the law. Many officials, including me, have been subjected to a polygraph exam — an exceedingly unpleasant experience for anyone with a conscience or a literal mind. National security staffers’ careers can be wrecked over how they handle documents stamped SECRET.

Reporters, on the other hand, have little to lose when trawling for leaks. No American journalist has been prosecuted for publishing classified information. And the media could gain even greater protections under a shield law or new procedures now being hammered out with the Justice Department .

I’ve heard from reporters and senior government figures alike that the Obama administration’s leak investigations are having a chilling effect on officials who normally interact with journalists. That’s unfortunate, because regular conversations about the business of government, as well as the injection of alternative perspectives by way of the questions reporters ask, or their reflections on what they hear, are critical to a healthy state.

But the stakes might be clearer if sources knew that reporters had skin in the game, too: if they understood that journalists weren’t asking questions idly — in hopes of a passing scoop, or even happy to be made use of in some messaging campaign — but because the information is so critical to the public interest that they are willing to risk repercussions for finding and airing it.

Ads by Google Security Clearance Help Personnel Security Clearance (PCL) & Facility Security Clearance www.jeffreylawgroup.comComparatively unfettered though the press may be in the United States, its courage is frequently lacking. Washington relationships cemented by orchestrated leaks and background innuendo can verge on the sycophantic. Then again, government disingenuousness has also been on display in the current imbroglio.

Far too much information is protected by unwarranted classification. It’s hard to take a system seriously that places so many gigabytes of material that are not critical to national security under the same umbrella as the few nuggets that are. I’ve seen a New Yorker article included among prep documents for a National Security Council meeting stamped SECRET//NOFORN (meaning that only cleared U.S. citizens were allowed to read it). I’ve had a colleague contradict a sunny e-mail he sent me on the unclassified system with a SECRET snarl. Such misuse makes a mockery of rules that the leak investigations seek to enforce.

At least as troubling is the double standard that has seemed to apply in the recent investigations. The six criminal prosecutions under the Obama administration have all targeted working-level government employees. Meanwhile, senior officials leak — or authorize leaks — with impunity.

In September 2010, a flurry of coverage in major U.S. newspapers reported a supposed government decision on how corruption in Afghanistan would be handled. Perusing the articles with growing wonder, I looked down at a memo on my desk. Not only were passages quoted from it classified, the document was also watermarked DRAFT. No decision had been made yet because debate on the draft had not even reached the level of Cabinet secretaries. It was a classic Washington case of offensive leaking. For months, I was convinced that the perpetrator was the late Richard Holbrooke, then special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. But I kept asking reporters. Finally I traced the leak to a senior White House official, whose career has progressed untroubled.

Last year, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius was given an exclusive preview of 17 redacted documents that had been retrieved from Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Ignatius wrote that the documents had been declassified but had not yet been made available to the public. More than six weeks later, those 17 documents — and only those 17, out of some 1.5 million scooped up at Abbottabad — were released. How does such selectivity square with a coherent declassification policy?

Perhaps the most remarkable example of disclosure of classified information in plain sight was the detail offered up to the media in the wake of the raid that killed bin Laden — capped off by briefings from then-White House chief counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. The superfluous specificity left a number of officials who had helped plan the raid aghast, including a longtime Washington insider, then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The law, including regulations protecting national security secrets, should be taken seriously, and decisions to break it for reasons of conscience should not be taken lightly. But by the same token, the law should not be stretched for purposes far beyond its original, legitimate intent. And most important, it should be applied equally to all who vow to uphold it.

UPDATE: Saturday, June 1, 2013. Sarah Chayes writes: Thanks to all who have contributed great comments. This is just the type of debate such a fraught issue should generate. One thing I regret in this piece is not taking my argument about over-classification beyond criticism. Could any of you -- particularly with government experience -- suggest practical recommendations for how to reduce the amount of material that gets classified, and how to change the incentives for over-classification? Who should issue what directives? What type of implementation and follow-up mechanisms would have to be designed? Let’s use the comments forum to start hammering out a solution to this long-festering problem.

Logged

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed

Robert's post makes a good point, IMO. When it was the NY Times leaking national secrets, some of us were quick to criticize them. Just because Rosen was able to get inside or classified info doesn't mean it should have been published or broadcasted. Fred Kaplan at Slate made this point recently: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/05 /james_rosen_and_the_justice_department_leak_investigation_the_fox_news_reporter.html"Why James Rosen Is Not Blameless"

When a President divulges secrets, as with the bin Laden info and raid, they are by definition no longer classified. It is still wrong to identify sources and methods without good reason.

The question of Rosen's good or bad judgment is separate from the apparent fact that Attorney General Eric Holder lied to congress about his own involvement investigating a journalist and his contacts.

"You see, it's not the blood you spill that gets you what you want, it's the blood you share. Your family, your friendships, your community, these are the most valuable things a man can have." Before Dishonor - Hatebreed

I'm not a fan of any of the late night talk hosts, and Jay Leno is a Dem, but a comedian first. At the start of Obama, the comedians wouldn't touch him. Now circumstances have reversed themselves, at least with this Leno clip:

Well, let’s see what’s going on. Hey, Snoop is back in the news. Not Snoop Dogg, Snoop Obama. Yeah, Snoop Obama. A big change at the White House today. They closed the gift shop and opened a Verizon store. Yeah.

Well, this has become a huge controversy after it was revealed that the National Security Agency seized millions of Verizon phone records, and of course this has caused a panic among civil libertarians, constitutional scholars and cheating husbands everywhere. Oh my God.

How ironic is that? We wanted a president that listens to all Americans – now we have one. Yeah.

Actually, President Obama clarified the situation today. He said no one is listening to your phone calls. The president said it’s not what the program is all about. You know, like the IRS isn’t about targeting certain political groups. That’s not what it’s about!

I mean what’s going on? The White House has looked into our phone records, checking our computers, monitoring our e-mails. When did the government suddenly become our psycho ex-girlfriend? When did that happen? When did that happen? When did that happen?

You know, I’ll tell you, if Obama wants to put this snooping thing to good use, how about spying on the IRS next time they throw a $4 million party. Why don’t you do that one? Yes, exactly, exactly. Find out about that. Yeah.

As you know by now, the IRS has taken some heat for reportedly spending $4 million on a conference in Anaheim last year where employees took dancing lessons. One of the dances they learned? Tap dancing around the issues. Yes, that was very good, be able to tap dance

Well, the latest one that came out today. You see this one? They’re saying the IRS paid an artist $17,000 to paint portraits of Abraham Lincoln to help inspire the IRS agents. You know, if they want to see a picture of Lincoln for inspiration, take out a $5 bill and save the taxpayers $16,995. Exactly. That’s what they said. They said.

Oh, the hearings have been unbelievable this week. Congressional investigators say the IRS basically threw a $4 million party for themselves. But in fairness, who else is going to throw a party for the IRS? Really? Now, a going away party, I think we’d all chip in. I would chip in! I would chip in! There you are, no problem. I would pay for that.

From the EditorHi there,Journalists have a terrible reputation. A recent survey in Sydney found that journalists (including shock jocks, TV reporters and newspaper reporters) ranked just above car salesmen and state politicians. There’s a simple explanation for that, as a columnist for the Daily Caller (himself a journalist probably) declared: “Most journalists are not interested in the truth, and most people know this”.

Anyhow, to restore your failing faith in journalists, I’d like to tell you about Odoardo Focherini, who has become the first Rightous Among the Nations, an Israeli honour for non-Jews who saved Jews from the Holocaust, to be beatified by the Catholic Church. The ceremony took place on Saturday in his home town of Carpi in northern Italy. In 1942 Focherini was managing director of a newspaper called L’ Avvenire d’ Italia. He and his wife Maria had seven young children. It was not a good time to be a journalist, as Italy was governed by Fascists and was allied with the Nazis, but Focherini was using his contacts to set up a network for Jews escaping to Switzerland.After Italy switched sides and joined the Allies on September 8, 1943, the Germans began to deport Italian Jews to their concentration camps. Focherini, with the approval of his wife, stepped up his efforts. He had saved about 100 Jews before he was arrested in March 1944. Thereafter he was in a series of camps before succumbing to a leg ulcer on December 27, 1944 in Hersbruck.

The Rome office of the American Jewish Committee said Focherini “acted selflessly in accordance with the highest moral principles shared by our two fraternal religions. This act will create yet another bond between Christians and Jews, further enriching our deepening dialogue. May the recognition and memory of Odoardo Focherini’s profound faith and humanity be a blessing to all the world’s peoples.”

I hope that will restore your faith in journalists. Some of them, at least, are interested in the truth.

The Senate, by 4th of July, will pass an Immigration bill that is going nowhere. This probably the number one political event of our time, based on the exuberance of liberals and the panic and fright of conservatives. The House opposes the bill and the majority controls what gets through its committee and what comes to its floor for a vote.

Meanwhile the House, one chamber again but controlled by the other party, has voted 37 times to repeal Obamacare. Repeal is not supported by the majority in the Senate. No coverage, no excitement, no panic because everyone knows it is going nowhere.

Healthcare is every bit as big an issue as immigration. Why are these two non-events covered differently?

Networks Fail to Mention ‘Lull’ in Warming in All 92 Climate Change Stories

President Barack Obama’s new climate change initiative will purportedly share “a national plan to reduce carbon pollution, prepare our country for the impacts of climate change and lead global efforts to fight it.” Although he intends to demand action, most Americans do not see climate change as a “major threat,” according to Pew Research.

The Washington Post reported Obama will include “a plan to limit carbon-dioxide emissions from existing power plants.” That’s an agenda item the media will love. It was just a month ago when CBS “This Morning” interviewed Time magazine senior writer Jeffrey Kluger on May 11 who said “we have to curb the use of fossil fuels.”

No doubt the broadcast networks will cheer the president’s efforts, since they’ve spent years warning of the threat of climate change, even in the face of science that challenges their view. This year they’ve worried about many things including “raging infernos, surging seas, howling winds,” reported alarmist claims that weren’t accurate and connected weather to climate when scientists disagree. The networks have also completely ignored the “lull” in warming in recent years, in all 92 stories about climate change they reported in 2013.

One ABC report was typical, warning: “Many cities had record warmth, including Washington, D.C. where a lack of action on manmade climate change is likely to mean 2012 is just a glimpse into an unpleasant future, according to many scientists.”

Just since Jan. 1, 2013, ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news programs have aired 92 stories about “climate change” or “global warming.” Not a single one of those stories mentioned the “warming plateau” [of the last 15 years] reported even by The New York Times on June 10.

Movie moguls once collaborated with Nazis. Are they now kowtowing to Chinese Communists? By John Fund

A forthcoming book presents a strong case that pre–World War II Hollywood was in bed with Nazi Germany, in catering to its censorship demands. The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler, by Ben Urwand of the Society of Fellows at Harvard University, uses archival material to show that Hollywood studios agreed not to make films that attacked Nazis or depicted their harsh treatment of Jews.

Afraid of losing the lucrative German market, the studios invited Georg Gyssling, Hitler’s personal consul in Los Angeles, to preview films before their release and suggest changes. “If Gyssling objected to any part of a movie — and he frequently did — the offending scenes were cut,” concludes a review of Urwand’s book in Tablet magazine. “As a result, the Nazis had total veto power over the content of Hollywood movies.”

The German head of MGM actually spoke to German reporters about the “satisfying collaboration on both sides” in Hollywood. Jewish characters virtually disappeared from Hollywood films. Paramount and Fox channeled box-office profits into the production of propaganda newsreels featuring Nazi leaders. Studio mogul Louis B. Mayer was quoted in a legal case on the 1933 anti-Nazi film Mad Dog of Europe, a film that wound up not being produced: “We have terrific income in Germany, and as far as I am concerned, this picture will never be made.” Thank God nothing like that oily surrender of artistic freedom could happen in Hollywood today. Or is it happening today, if we look at show-business relations with the authoritarian regime in China? After all, China is a “terrific” market for Hollywood executives that has them kowtowing to Chinese censors and even jumping into self-censorship to curry favor with them.

With ticket sales in Western countries going flat, Hollywood is desperate to place more films on Chinese screens. China is already the second-biggest box office in the world, and it may be the biggest in as few as five years as it opens ten new movie screens a day. Rigid quotas restrict the number of foreign films entering China to only 34 a year, but that’s up from 20 a year ago. Hollywood has big dreams for China.

But those dreams must first deal with the nightmare of Chinese censorship.

The State Administration of Radio, Film, and Television (SARFT) — a group of 40 or so censors appointed by the Communist government — keeps a watchful eye to ensure not only that depictions of sex and violence are curbed but also that films “promote stability,” in the words of Janet Yang, the Chinese-American producer of The Joy Luck Club. Robert Cain, who focuses on Chinese productions for Pacific Bridge Pictures, told Britain’s Daily Telegraph: “Unless there is a flattering image of Chinese people, you are going to run into a challenge from the SARFT. The list of taboos is so long, it is very often too difficult to make anything entertaining.”

Sometimes the “adjustments” made to films are nothing more than business as usual. U.S.-Chinese co-productions don’t count against the foreign-film quota, so it’s no surprise that part of the upcoming Transformers 4 will be shot on location in China, with local actors rounding out the cast. Another co-production, Iron Man 3, flatters the Chinese by showing a protagonist who travels to China in order to see a particular renowned surgeon. But some co-productions are more iffy. The Hollywood Reporter says director Michael Mann’s next effort will feature a joint U.S.-China task force tracking down a deadly hacker in the Balkans. That is a howler given all the headlines on Edward Snowden and how our National Security Agency and Chinese military hackers are at war in cyberspace.

Bizarre and implausible plot lines aren’t the only problem. There is a lot of film censorship; and even more troublesome is the increasing amount of self-censorship by filmmakers who wish to anticipate what the Chinese objections might be.

Under pressure from Chinese censors, the most recent James Bond film, Skyfall, removed references to the sex trade in the Chinese territory of Macau as well as references to the torture of a British agent by Chinese officials. When Men in Black 3 was released in China, censors there had the studio excise scenes in which Will Smith erases memories of bystanders in New York’s Chinatown; authorities apparently feared that filmgoers would see the scenes as a comment on Chinese censorship of the Internet. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End saw half the scenes featuring Chinese pirate captain Sao Feng removed by censors because he was said to “vilify and deface the Chinese.”

But some Hollywood studios don’t even wait for the Chinese censors. Anxious about the Chinese response, the Brad Pitt film World War Z dropped the film’s reference to a worldwide plague of zombies originating in China. Red Dawn was a 1980s cult classic about Soviet troops that invade the U.S. and a group of teens that wage guerilla warfare against them. When MGM remade the film last year, the invaders were Chinese — at least until the film was released. Apparently to appease the Chinese, MGM spent $1 million on digitally erasing all Chinese symbols from military uniforms and vehicles, and replacing them with North Korean ones. Apparently the Pyongyang box office isn’t big enough to worry about offending.

No film is too big to avoid micromanagement. When Titanic 3D was submitted to the Chinese censors, they insisted that a scene in which Kate Winslet appears unclothed show her only from the neck up.

But director James Cameron sounded blasé about the censorship in an interview with the New York Times last year: “As an artist, I’m always against censorship. But censorship’s a reality, even in the U.S. . . . I can’t be judgmental about another culture’s process. I don’t think that’s healthy.” The slightly taken-aback Times reporter later followed up: “Did you talk to other filmmakers — your peers — about Chinese censorship?

Cameron’s stunning response: “No. I’m not interested in their reality. My reality is that I’ve made two films in the last 15 years that both have been resounding successes here [in China], and this is an important market for me. And so I’m going to do what’s necessary to continue having this be an important market for my films. And I’m going to play by the rules that are internal to this market. Because you have to.” The Hollywood studio executives of the 1930s put it just about as plainly in their dealings with the Nazis, according to Ben Urwand’s book.

The “reality” faced by Chinese artists and filmmakers is dire indeed. Last April, the Chinese filmmaker Feng Xiaogang was honored by the China Film Directors Guild. Normally not one to rock any boats, Feng used his acceptance speech to rail against the “great torment” of censorship in China. He recently had his name removed from the credits of his new film, Mystery, to protest censorship directives placed on it. It’s no surprise that Feng’s attack on censorship was itself censored when it aired on Chinese television.

James Cameron doesn’t think it’s “healthy” for him to judge China’s governmental “process.” What is clear is that China isn’t healthy for artists, journalists, or dissidents. Reporters Without Borders lists China as 173rd in the world in terms of press freedom. Freedom in the World, the annual publication of the human-rights group Freedom House, had this to say about modern China in its 2012 report:

The Communist Party showed no signs of loosening its grip on power in 2011. Despite minor legal improvements regarding the death penalty and urban property confiscation, the government stalled or even reversed previous reforms related to the rule of law, while security forces resorted to extralegal forms of repression. Growing public frustration over corruption and injustice fueled tens of thousands of protests and several large outbursts of online criticism during the year. The party responded by committing more resources to internal security forces and intelligence agencies, engaging in the systematic enforced disappearance of dozens of human rights lawyers and bloggers, and enhancing controls over online social media.

Freedom House gives China a rating of 6.5 on its scale of civil and political liberties, with 1 being the best and 7 the worst. Its reports on Chinese-occupied Tibet are even grimmer. And could even worse abuses be taking place out of view, as was the case in Nazi Germany?

It’s not that Hollywood representatives are blind to the problems with giving in to Chinese censorship. But they show zero moral courage, and future generations may well fault them for it, just as today we are coming to condemn the way Hollywood tiptoed around the Nazi issues in the 1930s.

“The adjustment of some of our films for different world markets is a commercial reality, and we recognize China’s right to determine what content enters their country,” a statement from the Motion Picture Association of America to the Associated Press in April read. “Overall, our members make films for global audiences, and audiences’ tastes and demands evolve, and our members respond to those changes. But we also stand for maximum creative rights for artists.” Just don’t expect Hollywood to do much about it, short of an unlikely U.S.-led consumer boycott.

I worked in Hollywood once upon a time, so I understand the argument that business is business. While believing that the U.S. should press the Chinese regime on human rights. I also support trade with China — trade and cultural exchanges are helpful overall to the Chinese people. But Hollywood should spare us the cant about standing up for creative rights when too many people in Hollywood are focused on bending low to appease Chinese censors who control access to that country’s burgeoning box-office profits.

Ann Althouse, with an assist from Michael Barone, describes George Zimmerman’s racial background:

George Zimmerman is “one-fourth black, four times as black as Warren is Indian, though the New York Times describes him as a ‘white Hispanic.’”

Writes Michael Barone, noting that Elizabeth Warren asserts that she is “1-32nd Native American [and] George Zimmerman, the Florida accused murderer, had a black grandmother.”

If we’re doing plain old arithmetic here, Zimmerman is 8 times as black as Warren is Native American. (At the genetic level, it could be a lot more complex — were the identified ancestors 100%? — but that doesn’t explain the error.)

As Althouse concluded, if you “feel a little queasy about doing math, maybe your queasiness will carry over into wondering what the hell are we doing calculating racial percentages! It really is quite disgusting.”

Much more disgusting are the racial games the MSM are playing with this trial; keep the above details from Althouse and Barone in mind, as we’ll be returning to them momentarily. On Thursday afternoon, Washington Post-owned Slate ran an article on Zimmerman with the following headline and lede:

You’ll notice that’s a Google cache, as the headline was changed at some point today by Slate after they were reminded that Zimmerman is Hispanic. (You can see a couple of heads up to Slate in the comments to their Facebook page below.) The headline and subhead now read, “I Don’t Feel Your Pain — A failure of empathy perpetuates racial disparities.”

As of the time of this post, the original headline, ”Why White People Don’t Feel Black People’s Pain,” is still visible in Slate’s Twitter feed:

As well as its Facebook page:

At Newsbusters yesterday, Paul Bremmer noted in a post written before Slate changed its headline that the actual article has little to do with the incident involving Zimmerman and Martin, once it gets past its original racialist headline and lede:

Zimmerman and Martin were only mentioned in the opening paragraph, but that prominent placement indicates that Silverstein was trying to tie them into his larger point about the “racial empathy gap.” Here is that opening paragraph in its entirety:

“George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin because he perceived him as dangerous. The defense argues he was, the prosecution argues he wasn’t. No one, of course, argues that Zimmerman approached Martin with kindness, or stopped to consider the boy as anything other than suspicious, an outsider. Ultimately Zimmerman shot and killed Martin. A lack of empathy can produce national tragedies. But it also drives quieter, more routine forms of discrimination.”

There’s no direct mention of race in that passage, but the implication is clear when you read the rest of the article. Silverstein believes Zimmerman felt no empathy for Martin because Martin was black. But keep in mind that Zimmerman, as a Hispanic, is also a minority. Most of the studies that Silverstein cited dealt only with white participants. So Zimmerman’s connection to the racial empathy gap is highly questionable.

As Bremmer concluded, “Slate shouldn’t be using the Zimmerman trial to accuse all Americans of a lack of empathy for blacks.”

Well, yes. Especially when Zimmerman is of a diverse mixed ethnic background himself.

But then, as John Hayward writes at the Breitbart.com “Conversation” group blog, when it comes to the left, “The focus most certainly is race at the Zimmerman trial.” The Washington Post owns Slate; it has the same relationship with the Post that MSNBC has with its parent company — it’s the place where both agencies can really go to town with their “liberal” bias. And reading Hayward’s description of the trial, they’ll likely have plenty more opportunities to let it all hang out in the coming weeks:

Everyone from the Martin family’s lawyers, to the professional grievance industry, to characters like the New Black Panther Party was busy whipping up riot conditions and treating Zimmerman as a fugitive from racial justice, which led to filmmaker Spike Lee endangering the lives of an innocent couple that just happened to be named “Zimmerman.” And there’s a good reason the media referred to Zimmerman as “white” until photos of him finally leaked out, and they had to change it to “white Hispanic,” a very special demographic of which George Zimmerman seems to remain the only high-profile member.

As the likelihood of a not-guilty verdict grows, the machinery of racial unrest is getting pumped up again. Death threats against “creepy ass cracka” George Zimmerman are flying around Twitter. An acquittal might be the best thing that could happen for certain political and cultural actors, as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit suggested: “Obama and the Democrats would actually prefer an acquittal here. That’s because the whole point of the ginned-up Zimmerman affair was to inflame racial sentiment to boost black turnout in 2012. With any luck, they can turn an acquittal into another racial rallying cry, which will help in 2014. It’s not about Zimmerman; he’s just one of those eggs you have to break to make an Obama omelet.”

On the night of February 26, 2012, an altercation between two men in Sanford, FL, left one of them dead. After the deadly encounter, Sanford police took the lone survivor in, questioned him, weighed the evidence, and concluded that he had killed the other man in self-defense. The police released him and identified the two participants in the incident: Trayvon Martin, 17, who had been killed, and George Zimmerman, 28, who had fired the shot that killed Martin. Sanford police soon come under assault in the media for mishandling the case. Before long, Washington gets involved.

From Feburary 29 to March 8, 2012, nothing much happens in the case. On March 8, though, the case gained national momentum when Tracy Martin, father of Trayvon, holds a press conference calling on Sanford police to arrest Zimmerman and charge him with murder. Two days later, on March 10, the Martin family gathered at the Sanford Police Department to urge police again to arrest and charge Zimmerman. Three days later, on the 13th, the Martin family asks Sanford police to release the 911 call from the night of the shooting. On March 16, Sanford police comply with that request and the 911 call from George Zimmerman to dispatchers is released. Zimmerman is heard on the recording telling the dispatcher about an unknown man walking through the gated residential community in the rain. Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that based on his experience as a neighborhood watchman, the unknown man appears to be up to “no good.” The community had been plagued by break-ins. Zimmerman says that the troublemakers always get away.

Releasing the 911 call, it turns out, is the pivotal moment in events after the shooting. Had the mainstream media handled the 911 call responsibly, there is every reason to believe that George Zimmerman would not be standing trial right now and the nation would not be worrying that the outcome of his trial might cause race riots.

The mainstream media did not handle that call responsibly, at all. Instead of airing the call as it was made on the night of February 26, NBC News deceptively edited it to make it appear that Zimmerman targeted Martin because the teen was black. The image of a race-based killing now solidified, it’s only a matter of time before the so-called “post-racial” president and his allies turn Martin’s death into a usefully divisive racial political football, in a presidential election year.

The damage from that false edit was only beginning. NBC News plays its false 911 call edit on the Today show and its other properties. The New York Times on March 22 calls Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” The rest of the media amplify the false racial narrative. ABC News releases a video purporting to show no wounds on Zimmerman at all, and later admits “error” while releasing a video clearly showing wounds and blood on Zimmerman’s head consistent with his self-defense story. At every step of the way, mainstream media “mistakes” and “errors” have consistently built up the false narrative that Zimmerman targeted Martin and killed him because he was black.

The media successfully fabricate the “armed white adult versus unarmed black teen narrative,” and soon enough the zeitgeist turns decisively against Zimmerman. The FBI and Justice Department announce that they are opening investigations into the shooting on March 19. Reverend and MSNBC host Al Sharpton holds a rally on March 22 in Sanford demanding “justice” and reportedly 10,000 show up. In Sharpton’s rally, NBC News and its properties have clearly crossed the line from dishonest journalism to open one-sided advocacy. Two days later, the race hustle is well and truly on, as Rev. Jesse Jackson arrives in central Florida to join Sharpton in calling for “justice.” On March 23, President Barack Obama weighs in, scolding America to engage in “soul-searching” while saying that if he had a son, he would probably have looked like Trayvon Martin. Obama’s remarks, delivered in the Rose Garden at the White House, elevate the shooting past the point of no return. Charges against Zimmerman are inevitable, lest Republican-controlled Florida face the Holder Justice Department and a full-frontal media assault. At this point, the media and race hustlers are sparing no quarter. Taxpayer-funded PBS simply calls Zimmerman “white” on April 10 in a segment hosted by Gwen Ifill, who is black.

Fast forward more than a year and Obama has been re-elected while “white Hispanic” Zimmerman is on trial facing second degree murder charges. Last week the prosecution put on its case, and it turned out to be almost entirely helpful to Zimmerman’s defense. His wounds, which ABC News had tried to cover up in its own deception, were consistent with the testimony he gave to Sanford police immediately after the shooting, when he told police that Martin, larger and more athletic than Zimmerman, had gotten on top of him and was beating him and smashing his head into a sidewalk to the point that Zimmerman reasonably feared for his life. Zimmerman told police that he only shot Martin in self-defense. The only clear evidence of racism in the case came from prosecution witness Rachel Jeantel, who testified that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy-ass cracker” during a phone call shortly before the shooting. Witness John Good was first on the scene after the shooting, and as a prosecution witness told the jury that he had seen Martin on top of Zimmerman delivering a “ground and pound” to the smaller man. Every other witness in the trial, with the exception of Martin’s mother, has given testimony that in one way or another backs up self-defense and introduces more than reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of murder in any degree. Martin’s mother testified that she hears her son screaming for help on the 911 recordings of the fight. But other witnesses testified that the voice belongs to Zimmerman. Testimony about the 911 calls, then, is a wash. The prosecution’s case has introduced enough reasonable doubt on the murder charge that Zimmerman ought to be acquitted and go free. He could still face a civil suit from Martin’s family, where the evidence standards are lower and the outcome of the criminal trial could be useful to the Martin family’s lawyers as they craft a civil case against Zimmerman.

The media’s role in the Zimmerman case must not go unexamined. The fact is, the Sanford Police Department, which became the media and race hustlers’ target during this saga, got things right. They took Zimmerman in after the shooting, interviewed him, examined the evidence from his wounds to the full 911 call, and concluded that he had shot Martin in self-defense. “Police department gets things right” seldom makes for a sexy media narrative, just as “Hispanic neighborhood watchman shoots black teen behaving suspiciously in self-defense” doesn’t advance any media narrative. So the media and the race hustlers fabricated a narrative based on falsified evidence. NBC’s deceptive edit of the 911 call turned the evidence on its head and created a racial narrative that the facts do not support and never did. That edit, which despite NBC’s claims could not have been accidental, was malicious. It was also, in retrospect at least, racist. The media almost never reports black-on-black crime or black-on-white crime in America. It reserves most of its crime stories to celebrity killings, attractive women or children who have gone missing, and incidents that advance political narratives like the murders of James Byrd and Matthew Shepard. The Zimmerman case became political because the media, led by NBC News and ABC News, fabricated evidence in order to make it political. A Hispanic man killing a young black man in self-defense is far less interesting and politically useful than an older white man shooting an innocent black boy in cold blood and then claiming self-defense. The media recognized that it could use the Martin shooting to advance narratives of racism while also attacking the Second Amendment and “stand your ground” laws. So the media engaged in racism en masse, turned Zimmerman white, and faked the evidence to make him a murderer. The media’s racism has put Zimmerman on trial and America on edge as the case nears the verdict phase. Threats of race riots hang not just over central Florida, but the entire country, if the jury acquits Zimmerman. We would not be here if media from NBC to ABC to the New York Times had not deliberately turned the shooting into a racial incident.

Zimmerman filed a lawsuit against NBC in December 2012. That case should go forward once he is acquitted in the criminal trial. Hopefully his lawsuit against NBC will expose the media for its irresponsible and devious political practices and its racism. George Zimmerman should end up a very wealthy man, if any “justice” is to finally be done in this case.

Hardball guest host Michael Smerconish on Monday was so gentle with reformed prostitution patron Eliot Spitzer that even the former governor seemed uncomfortable. Talking about Spitzer's new run for New York City comptroller, Smerconish enthused, "Governor, does running now mean that resigning was unwarranted?" He continued, "Would a Spitzer victory mark the of end of the sex scandal as we know it? And I'm asking, really, have we become too intrusive into our elected officials and candidates' private lives?" This appeared to be too much for Spitzer. He allowed, "Look, I'm not sure I'm the right person to ask, because I have a perspective that is so tailored to what I've been through."Read More | 16 Comments MSNBC's Joy Reid: GOP Abortion Restrictions Are Like Muslim 'Shariah Law'

By: Brad Wilmouth | July 08, 2013, 18:16 ET <image002.jpg>On the Wednesday, July 3, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC contributor Joy Reid compared abortion restrictions to "Shariah law" as she blasted North Carolina state senate Republicans for the "sneak attack" of including the restrictions in a bill banning Islamic law in the state. Reid:Read More | 22 Comments MSNBC Harris-Perry Claims We Are In 'Third Reconstruction' After Voting Rights Decision

By: Nathan Roush | July 08, 2013, 18:00 ET <image003.jpg>On her Sunday morning programming live from the Essence Festival in New Orleans, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry, the namesake of her show, entertained a panel of African-American leaders to discuss several contemporary issues including the recent 5-4 decision handed down by the Supreme Court that declared Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional because it used, to quote Chief Justice Roberts, “a formula based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relation to the present day.” Harris-Perry scoffed at Roberts’ decision and claimed that this decision caused the advent of a “third reconstruction” in America. [Link to the audio here]Clearly, this is a ridiculous comparison. The current social climate and culture of our country does not even hold a candle to the kind of suppression of rights that took place during Reconstruction or even during the civil rights movement, or so-called Second Reconstruction.Read More | 30 Comments Advocacy: CNN Begs Congress to 'Fix' Student Loan Rate Hike

By: Matt Hadro | July 08, 2013, 17:48 ET <image004.jpg>In a show of advocacy and not journalism, CNN skirted the policy details of the student loans debate and instead just paddled Congress for letting the loan rates double, on Monday's New Day.

Co-hosts Kate Bolduan and Chris Cuomo begged Congress to "fix" the student loan rate increase that automatically went into effect on July 1. They dubbed it the "'Come on Congress' campaign." Cuomo scolded Congress: "This student loans thing, we want to be on it just about every day. They can fix it. They know it was a mistake. You can't compromise education in the country, not this way." [Video below the break. Audio here.]Read More | 17 Comments Dick Durbin: Congress Should Decide Who Qualifies for First Amendment Freedoms

By: Matthew Sheffield | July 08, 2013, 17:40 ET <image005.jpg>In addition to trying to redefine the Second Amendment as not protecting anyone's right to bear arms, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin is now excited about how to redefine the First Amendment.As with guns, Durbin is trying to limit constitutional freedoms so that they cannot be used by people of whom he disapproves. In an opinion essay published in the Chicago Sun Times last week, Durbin argued it was "time to say who's a real reporter," so that no one else can be given First Amendment protections.Read More | 38 Comments PBS’s Gwen Ifill Bemoans Obama’s Scandals as Second-Term ‘Distractions’

By: Paul Bremmer | July 08, 2013, 17:38 ET <image006.jpg>We’re halfway through 2013, and PBS’s Washington Week used last Friday’s episode to reflect on the past six months of D.C. politics. During the course of the reflections, moderator Gwen Ifill trotted out the oft-uttered liberal complaint about “distractions” that have impeded President Obama’s second-term agenda so far.

She lamented, “You know, the one thing that's been a common theme throughout this first six months has been distractions. The ways in which pure politics has driven what ends up happening.” [Video below the break.]Read More | 33 Comments NBC's Gregory and Alter Discuss Obama's 'Centrist' Legacy

By: Kyle Drennen | July 08, 2013, 16:39 ET <image007.jpg>In an interview aired Sunday for Meet the Press's Press Pass, host David Gregory teed up left-wing NBC political analyst Jonathan Alter to promote his new pro-Obama screed, The Center Holds: Obama and His Enemies: "...you write the following: 'A set of values that had been part of the American consensus since at least the New Deal would remain in place....The United States would remain a highly partisan and often gridlocked nation, but a centrist one.' Is that the emerging legacy of this president?" [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Alter cheered the President's re-election: "I believe it is. Yeah, and that's where I think the 2012 election was so pivotal. Because it really was all on the line....You had one party, the Democrats, who were pretty close to the center, maybe a little bit left of center. And then you had another party, the Republicans, who were way out there and much more conservative than Ronald Reagan was."Read More | 22 Comments Minutes After Rick Perry's TX Announcement, WashPost Lectures: Don't Run for President!

By: Andrew Lautz | July 08, 2013, 16:38 ET <image008.jpg>On Monday, Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) announced he would not seek a fourth term as chief executive of the Lone Star State, saying the time had come “to pass on the mantle of leadership.”

It took the liberal media roughly 30 minutes to begin what will no doubt be an onslaught against the former presidential candidate, with the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza offering all the reasons why Perry “shouldn’t run for president again.”Read More | 19 Comments MSNBC's Klein Frets GOP 'Won't Do Anything to Help' Fix ObamaCare, Will Let 'People Get Hurt'

By: Brad Wilmouth | July 08, 2013, 16:35 ET <image009.jpg>On the Wednesday, July 3, The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, MSNBC analyst Ezra Klein -- also of the Washington Post -- joined host O'Donnell in complaining that congressional Republicans refuse to help the Obama administration make changes to ObamaCare that even the administration has concerns about, with Klein charging that the GOP is trying to let the act fail "no matter how many people get hurt along the way." Klein:Read More | 31 Comments CNN Anchor Bends Over Backwards to Spin for Trayvon Martin

By: Matt Hadro | July 08, 2013, 16:10 ET <image010.jpg>CNN's Suzanne Malveaux went to ridiculous ends on Monday to suggest that a testimony in defense of George Zimmerman could be used by the prosecution.

A witness testified that she recognized Zimmerman's voice crying for help in a 911 call as he struggled with Trayvon Martin, because she worked with him on a political campaign. Malveaux suggested that the prosecution could argue that Zimmerman's jubilant cries during political rallies could be similar to his voice while "pummeling Trayvon Martin" with "a sense of joy." [Video below the break. Audio here.]Read More | 33 Comments CBS Omits Spitzer's Political Opponent Allegedly Provided Him With Prostitutes

By: Matthew Balan | July 08, 2013, 15:51 ET <image011.jpg>Monday's CBS This Morning twice mentioned Kristin Davis, one of Eliot Spitzer's electoral opponents, during an interview of the disgraced former New York governor, but failed to mention that she claims to be the madam who sold Spitzer the services of prostitutes. Norah O'Donnell wondered, "Did you just look at the role of comptroller and say, 'look, I'd be running against Kristin Davis. I could probably easily get elected'.

O'Donnell led the interview with the issue of the former governor's prostitution scandal, and later mentioned Davis' name, but failed to mention the possible connection. Co-anchor Gayle King also referenced Spitzer's political adversary, but omitted her former "Manhattan Madam" role.Read More | 10 Comments MSNBC's Schultz Spews: GOP 'Attacking Minorities' By Opposing Obama's Efforts

By: Andrew Lautz | July 08, 2013, 15:04 ET <image012.jpg>Ed Schultz continued his weekly tirade against Republicans Sunday, arguing for a second straight week that the GOP is engaged in an all-out war against minorities.

After accusing conservatives of wanting to “keep a minority down” on last week’s Ed Show, the bombastic MSNBC host was at it again on Sunday, accusing Republicans of “attacking minorities” in their attempt to block President Obama’s appointees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).Read More | 34 Comments ABC Skips Dem Label of Prostitution Enthusiast Eliot Spitzer, NBC Hypes 'Comeback Kid'

By: Scott Whitlock | July 08, 2013, 12:28 ET <image013.jpg>The journalists at Good Morning America on Monday offered an assist to liberal politicians trying to avoid being associated with the scandal-plagued former Governor of New York. While announcing Eliot Spitzer's return to public life, news reader Paula Faris avoided any mention of the fact that Spitzer is a Democrat. As she noted his bid to be New York City's comptroller, Faris simply referred to the "disgraced former governor of New York."Over on NBC's Today, correspondent Kristen Dahlgren hyped Spitzer as "the next comeback kid." [See video below. MP3 audio here.] Comparing the ex-governor to Anthony Weiner, Dahlgren enthused, "2013 may go down as the year of the second chance." Despite connecting the two New York Democrats, Dahlgren also skipped any ideological label. It wasn't until the 8am hour that co-host Natalie Morales alerted, "The Democrat stepped down in 2008 over a prostitution scandal."Read More | 30 Comments Frustrated Chuck Todd Blames GOP 'Sabotage' for ObamaCare Failure

By: Kyle Drennen | July 08, 2013, 12:16 ET <image014.jpg>Appearing on Sunday's NBC Meet the Press, chief White House correspondent Chuck Todd blamed Republicans for ObamaCare beginning to collapse under its own weight: "...you could argue that there are some Republicans that are trying to sabotage the law, that they're hoping to not get it off the ground and then they can suddenly make the case, 'See, we've got to get rid of it.' And they've got some state governors that are openly trying to sabotage it." [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

Todd went on to attack Republican senators who protested an effort by the Obama administration to use the NFL to promote ObamaCare: "Look at what [Mitch] McConnell and [John] Cornyn did to the sports leagues? That was a shakedown. That was a threatening letter by the two leaders of the Senate Republicans, who essentially said, 'If you participate in this, if you help them try to enact this law of the land, be careful, there's going to be political repercussions.'"Read More | 93 Comments Gallup: Fox Is America's Main Source For News

By: Noel Sheppard | July 08, 2013, 10:41 ET <image015.jpg>This will REALLY make liberal heads explode!A Gallup poll released moments ago found more Americans consider Fox News their main source for news than any other news outlet in the nation:Read More | 128 Comments Former MSNBC Producer: MSNBC Is 'Official Network of the Obama White House'

By: Noel Sheppard | July 08, 2013, 10:02 ET <image016.jpg>A former senior producer for MSNBC came out with harsh words for his former network Sunday.Writing at the far-left AlterNet, Jeff Cohen - the former senior producer of MSNBC's Donahue show - said, "When it comes to issues of U.S. militarism and spying, the allegedly 'progressive' MSNBC often seems closer to the 'official network of the Obama White House' than anything resembling an independent channel":Read More | 73 Comments WashPost Book Reviewer Writes of Murdered Hookers, Pleads for Legalized Prostitution

By: Tim Graham | July 08, 2013, 08:02 ET <image017.jpg>In Monday’s Washington Post, book reviewer Patrick Anderson offered a positive review of New York magazine writer Robert Kolker’s true-crime story “Lost Girls” about prostitutes that ended up dead and buried in burlap bags along the highway on Long Island.

Anderson, a speechwriter for Jimmy Carter’s 1976 presidential campaign, detailed the dangerous, addictive life the white “sex workers” had lived – one of the victims earned $4,500 a week and spent $3,500 each week on heroin – and then concluded his review by insisting that prostitution should be legalized, but America’s “puritanical, hypocritical society” will not concede:Read More | 220 Comments Joan Walsh Attacks Palin Friday, Whines Sunday About People Picking Twitter Fights

By: Noel Sheppard | July 08, 2013, 00:04 ET <image018.jpg>The hypocrisy of Salon's Joan Walsh knows no bounds.On Friday she sent a hateful tweet to former Alaska governor Palin. After she took some heat for doing so, Walsh had the gall to tweet Sunday evening, "Hm, the people who like to pick fights on Twitter picked a lot of fights on Twitter this holiday weekend. Sad":Read More | 133 Comments 'CNN Shame On You' Signs Appear in Cairo

By: Noel Sheppard | July 07, 2013, 23:31 ET <image019.jpg>It appears some Egyptians are not pleased with CNN's coverage of last week's coup.According to numerous sources including CNN senior international correspondent Ben Wedeman, the following sign is appearing in the crowds in Tahrir square:Read More | 28 Comments “Amos ‘n’ Andy” Makes an Off-Color Comeback at Jesse Jackson’s Headquarters

By: Mike Bates | July 07, 2013, 23:09 ET <image020.jpg>“Amos ‘n’ Andy” was so controversial that in 1951 the NAACP demanded it be taken off the air for its derogatory portrayal of blacks. By 1966, the NAACP won a victory by stopping the show’s reruns from airing.But at Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Saturday morning forum this week, “Amos ‘n’ Andy” was back in fashion. Chicago talk show personality Cliff Kelley emceed a panel discussion. Warming up the crowd, Kelley placed his arm on the shoulder of Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree and tried a little humor: (video here)Read More | 56 Comments For the 'Where Have You Been?' File: AP's Rugaber Discovers Temporary Hiring 'Is Exploding'

By: Tom Blumer | July 07, 2013, 22:37 ET <image021.gif>In a Sunday morning story which will likely have limited reach, and will then probably be considered old news by the time the business week resumes tomorrow, the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, finally got around to recognizing a trend on which yours truly and others have been commenting for at least 2-1/2 years: the surge in employment at temporary help services.That the item's author is Christopher "Gone Are the Fears That the Economy Could Fall Into Another Recession" Rugaber makes it especially rich, once he explains to his readers some of the reasons why temp services is one of the few sectors employing more people now than it did at its pre-recession peak (bolds are mine):Read More | 19 Comments Congressman Raul Labrador Slaps Down David Brooks Twice on Meet The Press

By: P.J. Gladnick | July 07, 2013, 19:00 ET <image022.jpg>Have you ever wished that errant journalists could get their noses rubbed in their own absurdities and outright falsehoods like puppy dogs who make a mess? Well, if you had been watching Meet The Press today then you would have seen Congressman Raul Labrador of Idaho do just that to the New York Times house "conservative" David Brooks who was slapped down not once but twice. As you can see in this video and below the fold, Brooks didn't learn his lesson after being slapped down by Labrador for uttering absurdities about the Senate immigration bill. Labrador was forced to perform an encore performance after Brooks flat out uttered a falsehood. First we see Brooks describe how wonderful he thought the Senate immigration bill was:Read More | 100 Comments Clarence Page on America's Political Polarization: 'I Blame the Media'

By: Noel Sheppard | July 07, 2013, 17:23 ET <image023.jpg>The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page made a comment about the country's political polarization this weekend that might raise eyebrows on both sides of the aisle.Appearing on the syndicated Chris Matthews Show, Page said, "I blame the media" (video follows with transcript and commentary):Read More | 65 Comments Jim Carrey to 'Assault Rifle Fans': 'I Love You and I'm Sorry I Called You Names'

By: Noel Sheppard | July 07, 2013, 15:45 ET <image024.jpg>As NewsBusters previously reported, actor Jim Carrey back in March called gun owners "heartless motherf--kers."On Sunday, Carrey tried taking it back writing on Twitter, "Asslt rifle fans,I do not agree wth u,nor do I fear u but I do love u and I'm sorry tht in my outrage I called you names":Read More | 137 Comments George Will: 'What ObamaCare Requires For it to Work - Mass Irrationality'

By: Noel Sheppard | July 07, 2013, 13:50 ET <image025.gif>George Will made a marvelous observation Sunday about the so-called Affordable Care Act.Appearing on ABC's This Week, Will said, "What Obamacare requires for it to work - mass irrationality, both on the part of employers to ignore that incentive and on the part of young people who are supposed to pay 3, 4, 5 times more for health insurance than it would cost them to just pay the fine and ignore it" (video follows with transcript and commentary):Read More | 131 Comments Bush on What He and Obama Discussed in Africa: 'What a Big Pain the Press Is'

By: Noel Sheppard | July 07, 2013, 12:54 ET <image026.jpg>Former President George W. Bush had a marvelous line during his interview aired on ABC's This Week Sunday.Asked by Jonathan Karl what he and President Obama discussed in Africa last week when the cameras weren't rolling, Bush replied, "What a big pain the press is" (video follows with transcript and commentary):Read More | 103 Comments Bloomberg/BizWeek Acknowledges 'Obama Call for Muslim Brotherhood Role' in Egypt

By: Tom Blumer | July 07, 2013, 01:04 ET <image027.gif>Nicole Gaouette and John Walcott at Bloomberg BusinessWeek have revealed that the Obama administration has specifically stated that it wants the Muslim Brotherhood to have a role in any new Egyptian government. Meanwhile, other news outlets, particularly the Associated Press, have avoided disclosing that specific detail.There are two "little" problems with the administration's disclosed position. The first is that now-deposed Mohammed Morsi's final speech on Tuesday was seen as a promise that there would be civil war if he were ousted. The second is that Morsi supporters in the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups have promised to carry out a campaign of terror until Morsi is reinstalled, and are keeping that promise. Those two factors should objectively disqualify the Brotherhood's involvement. Excerpts from the Bloomberg pair's report follow the jump (bolds are mine):Read More | 72 Comments AP Updates White House/Egypt Situation With No Mention of 'Muslim Brotherhood' or 'Morsi'

By: Tom Blumer | July 06, 2013, 21:50 ET <image028.gif>You've got to hand it to the folks at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press. No news organization on earth is as consistently effective at burying the substance of a story while appearing to cover it.Take this evening's unbylined coverage of the Obama administration's noncommittal, substance-free positioning on the situation in Egypt. It takes a special talent to get through a few hundred words in a story such as this without ever mentioning the name of the ousted Mohammed Morsi or his Muslim Brotherhood party, and whoever wrote the AP story was up to the challenge (bolds are mine):Read More | 49 Comments Major Newspapers Turn Down Pro-Life Ad, Baby Image 'Too Controversial'

By: Randy Hall | July 06, 2013, 17:45 ET <image029.jpg>Liberal newspapers across the nation have no problem selling advertising space for pictures of babies to promote such products ranging from diapers to online investment firms. However, three major papers -- USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune -- rejected an ad from a pro-life organization that showed an infant at roughly 20 weeks' gestation because it's “too controversial.”An article by Caleb Parke on the Live Action News website stated that the ad featured an illustration of an adult hand holding a 20- to 24-week-old baby with the quote: “This child has no voice, which is why it depends on yours. Speak up.”Read More | 116 Comments AP Initially Claims June Jobs Report Might Delay Fed 'Tapering,' Then Reverses Field

By: Tom Blumer | July 06, 2013, 14:50 ET <image030.gif>It wasn't a tough prediction, but late Friday morning Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters noted the seemingly "metaphysical certitude the Obama-loving media will be falling over themselves in the next 48 hours to report the better than expected jobs numbers in June." Well, of course.Noel also wondered how much attention the press would pay to less than desirable aspects of yesterday's jobs report from Uncle Sam's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The answer at the Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, which carried at least eight reports relating to the news and its effects on the financial markets, was "hardly," as will be seen in excerpts after the jump. Additionally, the AP reversed its initial take that yesterday's non-change in the unemployment rate would keep the Federal Reserve's stimulus flowing, later deciding that the jobs report was so good that the Fed can let the tapering begin.

For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?

Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran; self-immolation in Tibet; human trafficking across Asia; and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.

The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 70s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn't be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public's last defense against domestic propaganda?

BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."

"They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate."

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, Al-Shabaab or VOA Somalia."

This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get Al-Shabaab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars - greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon's top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported The Post.

But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

One example included a report by the late Buzzfeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it's a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico's Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."

That of course doesn't leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won't be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we'll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."

While it is known that Leno is a registered Democrat, unlike his mindless liberal competitor, he attempts to be a comedian first, and this administration is leaving at least as many openings for humor as previous Presidents did.

"Did you hear about this? The IRS has admitted they were targeting conservative groups. President Obama called it outrageous and said he would immediately have his Benghazi investigators look into it."

Ouch.

And Bill Maher:

President Obama was in Germany and spoke at the Brandenburg Gate, which divided that city during the Cold War. Obama said: “It’s taught me a lot. When I was a kid, West Germany taught me the importance of standing tall, and East Germany taught me the importance of reading everyone’s mail.”